Decision Reference Number: 2022-0059 – Tractor Insurance Claim declined
In May 2019 the complainant accepted a claim settlement from the insurer to the value of €23,475 due to a fire causing damage to two sheds. This sum did not include the damage caused to a tractor insurance claim which was also covered by the farm protection policy. According to the complainant he intended to insure his tractor for the sum of €15,000. The provider incorrectly recorded this according to the complainant, and instead insured it for the sum of €1,500, and hence rejected a claim settlement offer for the loss of his tractor. The complainant states that the correct value of the tractor failed to be recorded by the provider when it was first getting insured, leading to an error occurring throughout the lifetime of the policy. The late policyholder believes that a genuine mistake was made, something which his son agrees with.
A farm protection policy was agreed following the completion of a statement of fact and claims declaration form. This information was provided by and agreed with by the policyholder. It was under instruction from the policyholder that the renewal took place. The policyholders son was also aware of the tractor being insured for the fee of €1,500 but made no attempts to dispute this figure. The policyholder had help from his wife during the telephone calls to the provider.
Evidence was submitted by both the complainant and the provider. The provider presented recorded phone calls and documentation in response to the complainant’s claims. Twice on October 5th 2015, the policyholder’s wife stated that the value of the tractor was €1,500. The statement of fact, claims declaration form, and terms of business were all presented as evidence. The policyholder’s son telephoned the insurer, but never mentioned changing the year of the tractor from 1975 to 1985. The house insurance value was changed, but the value of the tractor wasn’t, nor was there an attempt to change the value of the tractor’s insurance. There was no evidence provided by the policyholder’s family that he was incapable of making decisions and following instructions by himself.
The complaint was not upheld for the tractor insurance claim due to the evidence provided by the provider showing that the policyholder and his family had every chance to change the insured value of the tractor, yet did not do so.